I'm simply citing the known facts. You claim otherwise, well, show us your evidence. Your claim is the extraordinary one, so you owe us extraordinary evidence.

Known? Where is the beef? Sounds very much like any audiophile statement I ever heard of. Where I did claim anything? I just asked for evidence and I have to supply evidence for a question? Any idea of scientific approach at all? Or how to treat requests - even impolite ones - for evidence? And on top playing the authority card? Any familiarity with skepticism?Are you the pope of vinyl?

QUOTE

If, for instance, you bother to read the AES collections on vinyl, you will find what you seek.

Very arrogant and disingenuous, as almost all AES papers are behind a pay wall.

I am not sorry. I am an old grouch close to retirement and do not take to bull from whoever claims authority at face value any more. Show me the evidence and convince me, otherwise shut up.

I hardly ever play vinyl lately, relying on my server for playback, but I still do not accept unproven or undocumented claims from anybody about anything.My experience in vinyl over 50 years have audible proven to me that records when well treated can play with only minor surface noise repeatedly for a long time; that is why I do not accept statements like the one I keep harping about with out supporting evidence.

My experience in vinyl over 50 years have audible proven to me that records when well treated can play with only minor surface noise repeatedly for a long time

I could say the same (though not quite so many years), but we humans are largely unable to detect small amounts of harmonic distortion. We're also bad at spotting small changes in anything that happen little-by-little over a large time frame, especially if we are there to see each stage of the change (e.g. a son we see every day doesn't seem to grow; a nephew we see once a year is seen to grow a lot each time).

For both reasons, our subjective judgement of how well records wear, especially from a time long before we digitised them to the time we finally digitised them, should be taken as the vague anecdote it is.

Taking a test record, digitising it, then intentionally wearing it out, would be a robust test. Though frankly, I'd only really want to know about preventable wear. Unpreventable wear that I otherwise won't notice is probably best not known about - like coding artefacts in content that I can only acquire via lossy source, it's better if I don't notice them, and better if I don't know they're there so I don't try to notice them or imagine I can hear them.